Lawsuit filed & mediation letter

That's nice that they gave you a heads up. While they probably did file a suit, if they didn't, that would seem like a violation of the FDCPA. So make sure they really did file the suit.

Rather than go through the process, they would prefer you to just cut them a check.

Do they assert ownership of the alleged debt?

You may wish to tell them that although they aren't required to believe you. You should probably also get a copy of the court filing since you don't know exactly when you will be served and your time to answer starts then. This would give you some extra time, perhaps. If you don't want to pay for the copies, at least look at them carefully and see if they make any sense to you.

 

You are correct in assuming that they can't take pensions but that may not be your only worry. As Koronel Heinrich Dumbkomphenheimer of the German Reichstag once said, "Ve vill make you pay. Ve haff our vays" (LOL)

 

they cant get water from a dry rag.or blood from a turnip.let them sue what are they going to get.if you have nothing then there is nothing to get.

 

If they are saying that they did something that they didn't do or don't intend to do, that's likely a violation of the FDCPA. This is why you should make sure they really sued you. They probably did, just make sure.

You are saying that they are doing that right now.

You should check to see what you can legally protect. Likely Social Security and similar things are protected although you can do things that might expose you to risk, such as co-mingling funds that aren't protected. You should read your state's laws on this. You might consult with a lawyer. The problem with allowing this to go to judgment is the interest rate that might be attached. Some states have limited interest rates on post judgment debts. Others allow the contract you supposedly agreed to to decide. That can be bad if the contract they are using specifies 30%.

Consider reading the following:
My best advice to debt buyers....DON'T DO IT - Michigan Collection Law Blog

Why suing on purchased debt is rarely successful. - Michigan Collection Law Blog

Note that when he says that debt buyers are rarely successful, he almost certainly means when faced with another lawyer. Many people lose to defaults on this stuff because they don't have a lawyer or don't do the correct things or whatever.

 

Dumb Bob can't countenance such advice. It is rarely true, in his view at least, that allowing a default is sensible just because today the debtor lacks much money. Even as a strategic maneuver, it would seem to make sense to at least show up if only to attempt to ameliorate the often insane interest rate.

Along those lines, what is the usury rate limit in your state? Does getting greater than that amount require a contract? Where is the contract? Where does it say that the rate they wish to charge was accepted by the alleged debtor? So even if you are going to lose, perhaps you can lose better.

 

Yes and no.

Yes, it was intended as a bit of a joke but it also has some truth to it. They cannot legally grab money from most pension fund accounts. They cannot garnish pension funds directly but once that pension money hits the bank it can become fair game in the eyes of some debt collectors. That is because the federal law says they cannot garnish pension money. If you interpret that in the technically correct way it can mean that they cannot directly garnish the government to withhold money from a pensioner but the law does not say they cannot seize pension money from a pensioner's bank account. So some debt collectors will do it.

So, legal or not, once the pension money has been grabbed what is the pensioner to do about it? Apparently not much if he doesn't know the law and doesn't know how to go after the debt collector pro se. After all, if they grab the money by court order the pensioner has no money with which to hire a lawyer even if he could find one willing to take the case to federal court to see if a federal judge will do something to the debt collector or not.

I have access to a data base of over 600,000 court cases dealing with a great number of diverse cases so just now I spent a few minutes researching the question of whether or not pensions can be garnished and what laws control that matter. Most of the cases I found were ERISA cases but one in particular seemed to outline the question we have before us in this thread. That case,
W. J. USERY, Jr., Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, a National Banking Association, Appellee
seems to provide a pretty fair answer which is that pensions are exempt from garnishment even after they leave governmental hands and land in a bank account. That is indeed comforting but the problem still remains as to what is a pensioner to do in the event that some debt collector does move against a pensioner's bank account when the pensioner has no funds with which to fight because of the garnishment wrongfully paid out by a bank.

The next problem that still is not resolved is whether or not that which has been purchased by a pensioner using pension funds can be seized and sold at public auction to satisfy the debts of a pensioner. I tend to think that would be much harder to defend against. After all, a judgment creditor can get a court order permitting the sheriff to go to the debtor's home to see what might be there that is of sufficient value to warrant seizure and sale at public auction to satisfy the debt.

So while the protection of the courts against seizure of bank account money in pension accounts may very well protect against such garnishment what if the pensioner has a good computer and it's accessories or a gun, coin or stamp collection, valuable antique furniture, two or more vehicles, Television sets or other items? Can those be seized and sold at auction? I think the answer is that there is no court protection against that type of action or if there is I don't know of it.

There are ways to protect against that kind of seizure too but doing so isn't going to happen for free and even though most things can be protected there is no way to stop them from putting liens on real property or vehicles. So, yes, even though they can't do much to a pensioner they do have their ways.

A couple of the previous posters have extended the theory that they can't get blood out of a stone but the only way to really become such a stone is to own little more than one can carry in a back pack and go live in rescue missions or down by the lake and spend your life as a hobo.

The only other alternative that can work is to find some corporation willing to "rent" you everything that you own, put huge liens against vehicles and any real estate you might own. There are such corporations willing to do that or you can start your own. None of that is free or even cheap but it can be a viable approach if you know how to do it. So the next question is whether or not your creditors are willing to go that far to get paid and the answer to that is, yes, many are willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to get their money. As I said before, they have their ways. How far you are willing to go to defend is up to you.

 

if you read ,he said that he has no REAL ASSETS i take that to mean just as he states. it sound,s as if he has already met the idea of being a hobo and living as close to the mission as he can.it also has to be cost worthy to take something and try to sell it.

 

I'll be very surprised if they have any answers or helps for you. I've seen several posters in this and other forums who have tried them to no avail. Maybe you will have better luck. All you can do is try and see what they have to say.

 

It may be unfair to compare the original poster to a nomadic interloper wandering the country with a pole on his shoulder, all his belongings tied up in an old shirt hanging off the end. Even if all his assets are protected, it would seem sensible to make sure of that. And to not oppose a judgment because one is 'judgment proof' also seems a bit absurd. Certainly sometimes a loss is inevitable, but how you lose and for how much may make an unknown difference later.

 

That is a great resource indeed. I've carried him in my RSS feeds along with a great many more feeds from various other debt collection and consumer advocacy web sites and blogs for a long time. Probably for at least the last couple of years or so.

As I read through those kinds of resources using Thunderbird as my RSS reader I save lots of their articles and resources using Iterasi so I can find them whenever I might need them. What I save in Iterasi also has an RSS feed so when that feed hits Thunderbird I can save the items to my hard drive. Each day's feeds can be saved to a separate folder which makes the better ones much easier to find.

RSS can do amazing things and it just keeps on getting better all the time.

Here is another great RSS resource which is also carried in my signature line RSS feeds. Credit Law Network

 

i never said anyone was a hobo.i said it sounds like you already met the idea of being a hobo,meaning in terms of assets.you said you had no real assets and i took that to mean just that.it sounds like some people here are might be debt collectors by day and want to pretend to help by night.

 

I've often wondered about that myself.

 

There's alot of us older folks who have lived "judgment proof" for a significant number of years. As long as you can live a satisfying life, within your state's judgment exemptions, it's not a problem. Of course, some states make this easier than others.

If most of your enjoyment comes from consumption of services, rather than the purchase and use of assets, it makes it easier too. An individual into boats, motorcycles, and classic cars is going to have a more difficult time than one who spends their money on travel, sporting/entertainment events, etc. I know of no laws that allow a judgment creditor to restrict what services you spend your money on.

The "hobo" concept of being "judgment proof" is a misconception IMO.

I do recommend showing up and defending lawsuits, regardless of your exemption status.

 

You were getting some advice along the lines of don't worry about it, you are judgment proof. Dumb Bob found that status as a literal fact to be a bit difficult to believe. You might be judgment proof now to the extent that it probably isn't worth it to most judgment creditors to bother with you but you are unlikely to truly be judgment proof now and forever.

What if you got a little side project and made some money? That wouldn't be protected from the judgment. Paying off the judgment with such a windfall might be wonderful but the interest rate on the judgment might make all the difference. If it's very high, they might swoop in and take the money and then claim you still owe as much as you started the judgment out with.. Some states limit post judgment interest, others go by whatever the contract specifies. Do they even have a valid contact? Do they even have a valid contract?